I find the account by the New York Times more believable due to the fact that since there is no definite facts or sources regarding the explosion, they jump to no conclusions as to what happened and say that further coverage will be given once the hull of the ship is examined and they can determine whether the explosion was on the inside or outside of the ship. The New York Journal has information from an unreliable source and jumps to the conclusion and creates immense hype over unproven information. Also, their explanation as to how the mines worked is not scientifically correct, electricity could only pass underwater through waterproof cables which were not invented at the time so their explanation can be considered fictitious in general.
I find the account by the New York Times more believable due to the fact that since there is no definite facts or sources regarding the explosion, they jump to no conclusions as to what happened and say that further coverage will be given once the hull of the ship is examined and they can determine whether the explosion was on the inside or outside of the ship. The New York Journal has information from an unreliable source and jumps to the conclusion and creates immense hype over unproven information. Also, their explanation as to how the mines worked is not scientifically correct, electricity could only pass underwater through waterproof cables which were not invented at the time so their explanation can be considered fictitious in general.